Patrick M. v. Dee Ann J.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Patrick M. v. Dee Ann J.

280 A.D.2d 907, 719 N.Y.S.2d 913

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 7, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 280 A.D.2d 907 (Patrick M. v. Dee Ann J.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Patrick M. v. Dee Ann J., 280 A.D.2d 907, 719 N.Y.S.2d 913 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Patrick M. (petitioner) appeals from an order denying his application to veto the adoption of his child. Family Court properly assessed petitioner’s conduct during the six months prior to the child’s placement in denying the application because petitioner was unable to assume physical custody of the child (see, Matter of Raquel Marie X., 76 NY2d 387, 404, cert denied 498 US 984). The court also [908]*908properly granted leave to amend the adoption petition (see, CPLR 3025 [b]). Finally, the delay caused by the birth mother’s having named a different father did not prejudice petitioner. In any event, petitioner received adequate notice of the adoption (see, Domestic Relations Law § 111-a [3], [4]). We have reviewed petitioner’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Order of Monroe County Family Court, Parenti, J. — Adoption.) Present — Green, J. P., Wisner, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Patrick M. (petitioner) appeals from an order denying his application to veto the adoption of his child. Family Court properly assessed petitioner’s conduct during the six months prior to the child’s placement in denying the application because petitioner was unable to assume physical custody of the child (see, Matter of Raquel Marie X., 76 NY2d 387, 404, cert denied 498 US 984). The court also [908]*908properly granted leave to amend the adoption petition (see, CPLR 3025 [b]). Finally, the delay caused by the birth mother’s having named a different father did not prejudice petitioner. In any event, petitioner received adequate notice of the adoption (see, Domestic Relations Law § 111-a [3], [4]). We have reviewed petitioner’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Order of Monroe County Family Court, Parenti, J. — Adoption.) Present — Green, J. P., Wisner, Burns and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 907, 719 N.Y.S.2d 913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patrick-m-v-dee-ann-j-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack